1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule — now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available
2. New: “In Favour Of” filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws →
TaxTMI Login
🚀 New: Section-Wise Filter ✕
Just a moment...
1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule — now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available
2. New: “In Favour Of” filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
<h1>Tribunal overturns penalty for incorrect valuation, citing lack of intent to evade duty.</h1> The Tribunal allowed the appeal against the Commissioner (Appeals)'s order imposing a penalty under Section 11AC for incorrect valuation, resulting in a ... Method of Valuation - goods cleared to another unit of the appellant company - penalty - Held that:- The dispute involved relates to adoption of value relating to clearances made for captive consumption by another unit of the appellant company. Undisputedly, the recipient unit of the appellant is eligible for the credit of duty paid by the appellant. Under these circumstances, the intention to evade is clearly absent. The original authority also has refrained from imposing penalty - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. Issues:Appeal against order of Commissioner (Appeals) imposing penalty under Section 11AC for incorrect adoption of valuation leading to duty demand.Analysis:The appeal was filed against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) imposing a penalty under Section 11AC for the incorrect adoption of valuation, resulting in a duty demand of Rs. 28,939. The original authority had confirmed the duty demand but did not impose a penalty. The appellant argued that it was not a case of clandestine removal but a differential duty due to a misunderstanding in determining the value. The duty paid was available as credit to the recipient unit, which was also part of the appellant company, showing no intention to evade duty.The dispute revolved around the adoption of value for clearances made for captive consumption by another unit of the appellant company. It was acknowledged that the recipient unit was eligible for the credit of duty paid by the appellant. The absence of any intention to evade duty was evident, as even the original authority refrained from imposing a penalty. The Tribunal found no justification for sustaining the penalty imposed by the Commissioner (Appeals) and allowed the appeal with consequential relief as per law.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
